tv Charlie Rose PBS October 21, 2010 11:30am-12:30pm EST
>> rose: welcomeo our program. tonight, the speak of e hoe of repsentatives, nancy pelosi. >> 89.5% unemployment. it ecpses almost everything. but the fact is, this president and this congress he passed historic health care reform. wall street reform that we already did discuss. making college more affordable for our young people and families. very, very important. a whole list of issues that relate to our economy, ou.. the recovery and reinvtment act. >> rose: right. >> very, ry importa as well. but, again, a whole other array of issues that addss the effectivens of this ngress. ere no question about that.
the question that you rightly ask is why doest the public know it? how manyeopleoou think know that in the first eight months of this year more private sector jobs were created than in the eight years of the bush administration. >> rose: but that's your fault if they don't know. >> i agree. >> rose: why haven't you been better at explaining what you've done? >> our members are doing that one each disdiscrely in thei districts. this is t a national election. it is district by district. >> rose: pelosi for the hour. next. maybe you want schookids to have more exposure to the arts. maybe you want to prove meals for the needy. or maybe you want to help when the unexpectehappens. whatever you want to do, members project from american express
can help you take the first step. vote, volunteer, or donate for the causes the you believe in at membersproject.com. ke charge of makg a diffence. ptioning snsored by rose communications fromur studios in new york city, this is chare rose. >> rose: nancy pelosi is here. shis the speaker of the house of representatives. the democrats face an uphill batt in the midterm elections, the strglin economy continues toe onof the more important issues for voters and has made
2010 a very tough time. republicans,increasingly confident that they can take back the house, which would imperil speaker pelosi's position. democrats ar cauously optimistic they can retain control of the senat but ther e verylose races in very interesting places. g.o.p. candidates are also ahead in the gubernatorial races. several ctor, inudin the independent vote, turnout, and money will shape the outcome. the results could profoundly impact the legislative agenda and political map of the untry. i'm pleased to have nancy pelosi back at this table. welcome. >> re: thankou. wonderful to be here. >> rose: if i talk to you six months from now will i be talking to the speaker of the house or just a rresentative from californi >> well let me say being a representative from california is the greatest honor. toalk the floor of the use, to be chosen by your constituents to representhem is the highest honor. to be speaker is a great privilege. however, i have every anticipation that we will come together in this... a similar form as we are now with me as speaker of the house. >> rose: why do you believe that
when the numbers look... i mean, 95 house racesre in play, they say. >> well, who are "they"? (laughs) >> rose: tell me how your numbers are. that would be what i would like to hear. >> well, let me say why i believe that it would be very difficult fothe republicans to take over the house of representatives. let me tell you right here and now that i would rather ben our sition right now than theirs. order for them to win, they have to win around 38 seats and we'll win some,o they have to wiintohe 40s. our mbers are battle ready. th've been... many of them have wonwolections tt were veryough ectio. they've n in very difficult districts in terms of democratic numbers. and they know how to win those elections and communicate with their voters, a. b, when we were full bore in 2006, the war in iraq, the
unpopularity of the president the president was in the 30s, president bush, th all of tt gog forward, with great candidates and the rest we won 30 seats. for th to win maybe 15 mo seats than is a very tall order. >> rose: so how do you characterize all those polls that say the republicans are doing so well, iludi 40 or 40-plus seats that they will win? >> from our standpoint, the tional generic poll is interesting. and the one that came out today had us behind among likely voters but ahead among registered voters. so that means we have to change that reality and have...t's l about turnout. it's all about who votes. and so when we see the individualolls district by district, they're very close but they're very promising for us. >> rose: turnout is also abou energy who s thenergy inhis mpaign? >> well, you know it's interesting, because they talk about the enthuasm gap. >> rose: right. >> that momentums changing among base democrats and even
some of the issues that appea to the incumbents in terms of sending our jobs overseas and getting a tax credit to do it, privatizing social security and cutting medicaid. those issues are important to women, important to independents and important to our base vote. so they play across the board. but it i.. the turnout is all about the issues. our people understand what the choice is. the president has said it very clearly. we're moving america forward, we're not going back. we're fighting for the mile-class. as i said, we're pserving social secury not privatizing it. we're protecting medicare not cutting it andaking a voucher. we're making it the in america. that's our overriding thing. making in the america to support our manufacturing base but also to enable people to make it in america. again, instead of sending your job erseas and getting a tax cred to do it.
so, again, for these reaso, the choice is a car one between us and the more people know about that, the more the ntmeum swis to u and our members are the best communicators in their districts to have an exchange of ideas with their constituent we feelood about it >> rose: if, in fa, you're wrong... >> yes. >> rose:... and the hse turns republican, wha what will that mean for you? >> let me say this. we're right in the middle ofhe playoffs. new yo texas, n francisco, philly. would you go up to one o those players, tap them on the shoulder and say "suppose you lose"? we're in the game. we're in the arena. we're in the fight. we don't have an intention o losing. that isn't even in the... we are moving forward with our eye on the prize, as john lewis always tes us to do. >> rose: yes. >> and we're not thinking in terms "what if." would you, if in your opinio fight, if in your opinion the ring would you saydea what if i lose?"
>> rose: no, i would be thinking about victory. how i cod win. so tell me what you think the big issu is today. is it a referendum on esident obama? is it a referendum on unemployment? is it a ferendum on t fact thathey don't like the health care reform? is it a referendum on the bailouts? is it a rerendum on too much government? >> some or maybe all of the above. but i thin the main thi is jobs. that is really the four-letter-word that use all the time. when the president came into office, our country was facing a financial crisis. he pled bafrom the brink. ep recession. pulled us back. but you don't get credit for what you save people from. anso, again our message is outoving america forward. 9.5% employment is a dnting fire. it affts people directly in eir lives. and the choice that we have to present to the american people is do you want to go back to the exact same agenda as before--
which is what the republicans said they would do, the exact agenda-- or do you want to go forward? and we can showhat in the first eight months of this year more people, more private-sector jobsere created thann the eighyears of the bush administration. bu again, it's not enough. >> rose: the president has said the presi hassaid-- that he has been perceived, thinks, as a tax-and-spend decrat. and that was one of the mistakes he has made in the last two years. he said that to peter baker in an article in the "new york times" magazine. well, i don't know... i didn'tead the article so i don't know the context in which that was in. but i will tell y whathe president hadone he's been aisionary leader. it's just an honor, such an honor to serve with him. right from the start we created jobs bypassing recovery t recovery act, the american reinvestment and recovery act
which if we had... which has created or saved 3.6 miion jobs. economists on the right and left have said if we didn't take the federal actions that we had that gislation d hers, it uld be 8.5 million more people out of work, thatunemoyment would be4.5% andhe decit would be evenorse anit is. that in some terms is a depression. so the president has saved us from that. he has been a job creator. but he's had to pull us out of a deep ditch and those investments have helped to do that. if the publicans had given any leve of cooperation to him and to the legislation to create jobs, infrastructure, and otrs. or pass the health bill faster, the energy bill... >> rose: but were you prepared to notiate on any of that ha? >> we did negotiate on all of that. >> rose: a how many votes did you get from the republicans. >> none. >> rose: none? zero >> on the health care bill, they had close maybe 200
amendments. some were accepted, some were altered and some were not accepted. >> rose: so the president came to washington saying "i'm for change and i want a bipartisan envinmenbecause the issu are too important not to have solutions that have a bipartisan approach." >> right. >> rose: what happened? >> the republicans jt sa no. they just said no. th said... they made a calculated decision that it was better to obruct and it would help thein this election. and, by the way, many of th believe in what they said no. you kn, i'm not saying 's strictally a a political thing. they were opposed to health care for all americans. they objt to the ft that we have wl street rorm ich has the strongest reforms in decades in termsf the financial and seicesndustry and the greatest consumer protection in the history of our country. they didn't vote for that. they don't like that. >> rose: so are you... okay. the president has made the point about health care reform and financial reform.
>> right. >> rose: that he's getting criticism because... within his own party because didn't do enough. he didn't get the public option on health care reform, on financial reform they would have liked hito do more thingso restrict more bankin activities. >> well, the president had a balance... >> rose: from within the party. >> yes, t there's always that. on any given day you'll have people on the right and on the left, not just on one side, on the right and on the left. this goes too far, this doe't go far eugh. >> rose: so in your judgment he should be given credit for historic legislation? >> absolutely. this president has made a tremendous difference. >> rose: do you think the country views it thatay? the country? not republicans, the country. >> i certainly hope so. when they see theenefits they will see it more. th oer words, in terms of health care, some of that won't come due for a couple of years. however, iseptber the tien' bill of rights ce forth. very popar. children cannot be denied health care because of a pre-existing coition. no lifetime limits on your care.
children can stay on theolicy untilhey' 26ears old, on their parents' policy. being a woman is no longer a pre-existing medical condition. >> rose: rht. >> people like those aspects of the legislation and you have to have a comprehensive bill. >> rose: the impression is that the health care reform is not very popular in the country. that it provided a lot of new access but it did not provide the kind of cost containment and therefore it's vwedin alarge ction of t country as too costly. >> some peop are n... do not ve a pitive view of the health care bill. some for different reasons. >> rose: right. >> but that cost containment is a very important partf the bill and the president would never have allowed a bill to go forth, nor would we have pported one, because cost containment wathe main... if you had no other reason to do a health care reform bill, cost containment was essential. >> rose: but are you saying cost
containment was more important than access? >> well, i said if you had no her reason. certainly you have access as a reason, too. now, what the bill does do is save one trillion, three hundred billion dollars over t lifef e ll. andhat' fm the congressional budget office. that's not from me. we could not... >>ose: a you lieve those numbers e accurate? >> well, we can't act unless we act upon their numbers. >> rose: we talked out that before on this program. >> sometimes we like them; sometimes we don't, but we have to live by them because they are the... this is the impact on the federal budget. sometimes we don't like them because we don't get any credit for prevention or this and that. well, you don't and tt's just the way it is. but let me say this. the president came in and said this was apriority, it wasot only necessary because of cost containment but because of making america healthier. it's also a job creater. four million jobs will be
created by this. and it's about innovation, it's about prevtion, it's about wellness. but you really don't hear so much about that because for a long time thepresident was striving foripartisanship in the senate, he was trying to get republican support. he kept extending the hand but it was never reciprocated. so it took a long time to get a ll and in e course o that time the bill was characterized, itas about death pane, it was about abortion, it was about socialized medicine, none of which it was. so i think we missed a message opportunity there because we didn't have a bi. >> rose: oy. but on both the economic recoveryct and the stimulus program, some people will say that biptisahip is about the following thing: it is not just listening to what the other side says but som iown orderto bring em aboar to give up some... to allowhem to include some things thatou may not like.
>> of cour! i agree. >> rose: it may be also about ving up some things that you wanted as well. >> agreed. >> rose: that that didn't take place! their argument is you would lien but youould not include anything they wanted, would not take one step to accept witn the bill things that you thought... they thought were important. >> well, many of their amendments were accepted in the bill in the course of the three committees in the house th were doing the legislation. >> rose: right. >> but i recall to mind the summit that the president had... >> rose: with the republican leadership. >> well, leadership on the committee of jurdictn. and he said "give me your best ideas abt wh we can do working together." and this was well into the... >> rose: did they give himny ideas and did he accept any of them? >> well, they had some ideas but some of which were already in the bill. bu if you're never going to vote for the bill... see, think of it this way. if you and i are going to say we're going to come to an agreement but you're never going
to come to agreement, it doesn't really matter. you know, in other words, if you have a good idea, i want hit in the bill whether you're goin to vote for it or not and i don't care if it comes from the right, fr the left, fr the mide, fromhe who kno where. if it's a goo idea, we want hit in the bill. it wasn't about keeping their ids out. >> rose: tell me one good idea that the republins suggested you put in the bill. from the republicans. either in the recovery act or in the health care rorm. >> well, we... >> rose: one good idea that the republicans... >> let me tell you this. when president bush was president and i was the speaker... >> rose: yes? >> we did a number of things for the good of the country working togeth. >> rose: education reform being one of them, i guess. >> well, on the authorizing side yes, ucation reform. but also from the standpoint of the speaker's office and the president's office. we needed to have a stimulus package. i wanted infrastructure. the president would only do tax rebates. >> rose: right. >> we went alongithwhat he waed to do as longs he took
it down to low-income people. so we had this that compromise but we went completely his route. i couldn't get on.. i think infrastructure is really imrtant we grow our economy and we go forward. but we cooperated with him and went the route he went. the financialrisis was very destructive to our country and to the world economy. the republans weren't voting for that bill, washe democrats that worked with president bush. >> rose: didn't the tarp program come up during the republican administraon with ha plson and ben bernanke and tim geithner, that's when the tarp program began. >> rose: >> that's en it beg and it uld ver have passe.. you asked eaier on if that was maki people angry. nothing has made people arier than the ft that th think that the banks in their view were bailed out and nobody's bailing them out. >> rose: are they right about that? >> no, i think we had to do it, we had to do it. >> rose: so people who are angry at the fact there was a bank bailout and they didn't get
bailed out you're saying you have to understand it was necessary at the time for the economic future ofhe country, sorry. >> not sorry. in addition to which the way we insisted that the bill be written that the taxpayer would be made whole. that if the money would come back... >> ros and all but $29 billion of the tarp money hasome back. >> and if the restoesn't com back there's a fee that will brinit back. so the taxpayer will be made whole on that. if we had not done that, left to their own device it iswere not passing that. i think nothing, though, has madehe public angrier than that. especially since with the recklessness of some on wall street-- and i don't patriot everyone with the same brush,-- there's great joblessness for ny on main street. their jobs theomes tir pensions,heir savgs, their children's education and the rest at rk. and the's a view that some on wall street had the attitude that you nationalize therisk but you privaze thgain. >> rose: right. so en everything's okay,
they're okay. when it's not, the taxpayer and the csumer pays the pce. >> rose:some argue that the rhetoricn both sides gotut of hand. the rhetoric against the president but so the present's demonation of wall street. do you agree with that? >> well, wall street did cause a problem... again, not all of wall street. and i think some people on wa street project that their own good practices on others and thought, well why are they demonizing us? we didn't do that. some people did. >> rose: right. >> and it took a terrible toll. another place worked together back to your question with president bush was to pass a strong energy bill in008. a bi that the president signed that was very strong and that... >> rose: you passed energy legislation. cap and tra. everybody thinks it's dead. >> well, what... the idea is not dead. the senate will have some legislation that we hopefully... >> rose: will it include cap and trade? >> it will... i don't know.
it may be some other version of how you put a price on carbo o maybe not. but the idea that we have to do something is not dead. and, again,e put a marker the table, the private sector... this has to be oriented to the private sector. they have to make a market der some set of standards with some policy that encourages the private sector to be volv. so i thi we will end up with something tre. buwe were able in the recovery t tout ts ofbillions of dolls to make us... to lift us up in terms of btery research and production in our country. the president said at his swring in we will harness the soil and the sun and the wind to run our... fuel our cars and run our factory. anthat is not dead. the world is not wait for us to do this. you know that china is very aggrsiven this regard. >> rose: i do. >> it's happening.
so if we're going to be competitive internationally, if we're going to be more sece by reducing our depennceon foreign oil, if we're going to be healthier by reducing emissions in the air and if we're going to honor our responsibility to our children to pass on this planet we will be doing things. whether we do it one big deal... >> rose: what we haven't done is led many people to say that congress is dysfunctional. it cannot address thenati's big problem. >> rose: well, i... you've heard that before. this is not the first time you've heard it. >> but i've als heardand you had mr. pearlstein here the otheday and we had a series of articles coming out. >> rose: i did, i'mglad you sa it. >> articles are coming out saying thiss the most productive congress in a very long time. it stands with maybe the new deal and great society in mang a big difference. rose: th why aren't the democrats sweeping to election success? >> well, first... >> rose: you admitted it's a very closeace. yothink your members will prevail in the end and you'll still be the speaker and there will be a majority. >> one step at a time. e american peoplhave to
spk fit and our ccus has to sak about our leadership. >> rose: but you just said it's been an extraordinary... >> it has. >> rose:... historic effort by the president and the congress. >> that's right. passed health care reform... >> rose: yet the demrats, everybody agrees, areooking at a very challenging political situation. >> 9.5% unemployment. it eclipses almost everything. but the fact is this president and this congress have passed historic health care reform. wall street reform that we already did discuss, making college more affordable for our young people a famies. very, very important. a whole list of issues that relate to our economy, our... the recovery and reinvestment act. very, very importa as well. but, again, a whole other array of issues that address the effectiveness of this congress. there is no question about tt. the questi that you rightly
ask is why doesn't the public know it? how many people do you think ow that in theirstight months of this yr more private sector jobs were created than in the eight years of the bush administration. >> rose: but that'syour fault if they don't know. >> i agree. i ree. >> rose: so why haven't you been better explaining what you've done? >> our members are ing that one each discretely in their districts. this is not a national election. it is by district. >> rose: but if the choice is a continuation of what has happen in the fit two years versus something else, you are convinced the american people will be very kind to the democratic party? >> well, i think that the... it's clear to us that a majority support the agenda of stop sending jobs overseas, preser social security. >> rose: then you will be the speaker of the house for sure! if the majoty of the peop th country.. >> it's a question of turnout >> rose:... support what has been done. >> a question of turnout. >> rose: why don't y ha enthusiasm? this was this wasistoric,
you ought to b energized to continue... >> right, but you know, it's a funny thing. people say who has the energy? well, people say i'm going to vote,'m not enthusiastic about it but i'm going to vote. so it's not a question of enthusiasm, it's a queion of who's going to vote. whether they're enthusiastic or t. >> rose: so a higher percentage of repubcans are going to vote th a higher percentage of democrats? their turnout is better? they've got... >> well, what they have is tens of millions of unidentified, unlimited moneycomi fr elentsrom einancial services industry that doesn't like the wall street reform. fromhe health surae industry thatants totake. wants to voucherize medicare and turn back some of the health care reforms. from wall seet again which would like to have a piece of social secity. >> rose: fair enough. i know that's... >> so you have this money flooding and you know why they did it? >> why? >> because they knew they weren't going to win.
>> rose: you're talking about now to influence the election, not legislation of theast? >> i'malking about this election right now. >> rose: okay. you know what they say and the question is, yes, those charges have been ma and some people beeve they have traction. then the question comes what's the evidence? >> well... >> re:what'she evidence? >> a number of... i think 17 but i may have the number wrong, 17 setorsave written to the s.e.c. to say "where is this money coming from"? but there's no need for edence to know that the money is not disclosed. >> rose: but why can't you find the evidence if it's happening? >> but it is happening. here it is. we had something called the disclose act sponsored by chris van holland the chairman of e campaign committee disclose that. it jt sa to people "stand by your ad. stand by your ad. if you're proud of what you're saying, tell us who you are." >> rose: the president used to talk about this. is he contuing to talk about this? >> yesnd connecting it with
the issues? >> rose: the idea of foreign money flowing into this race >> secret money, whaver it happens be. but the fact is, it's not disclosed money. >> rose: andwho contrs t ndfus? >>well, you know it's aatter of public recd. >> rose: what do you think of the tea party? >> well, that has many meanings now, doesn't it. >> rose: tell me what it means to you. many manifestations. one of them is that they are... don't like the fact that special interests have such a control... have had such a controlling role in washington, d.c. and that's one place where we have some area of aeement. >> rose: so you're with themn that. when they say special interests have too much influence... >> had. >> rose: you say you've got the speaker of the house on your side. >> have had and president oba said we're changing tay we do business washington and that's why wall street reform, healthare reform ange in our energy legislation, even though not the big bill,educe the st of student loans banks don't like that.
so that, yes. but there are other manifestations of the tea party that might not be as benign and me of it may be... some of the good intentions may hijacked and finaed by the republican party. >> rose: part of eir argume has to do with the size of the debt and the deficit and... >> i agre with that. >> rose: and, well, wh they see as thal care and lots of other programs addg tohat deficit. they're alarmed by the level of american de. >> well, let's again correct e record on health care. our system couot suain health car.. the cos of heth care in our count. not individuals, not families, no businesses, not the economy and our competitive internationally to have heavy costs on our businesses and certainly not our federal budget so if we're just talking about thfederal budget and that
costs one trillion three hundred billion dollars saved under this legislion because it reduces the cost of health care. and so it's a false clm to say... now, they may saysome of it is about the health insurance industry that doesn't like the bill in the first place so they say all these things but the fact is if we had no other reason, if everybody had access and everybody loved their care and everybody was treated fairly in the health care stem, the co of heth care is unsustainable and wead to pass the legislation for that reason. >> rose: okay. yove g aipartisan deficit commission. >> yes. >> rose: what's going to happen when they release their report? >> the process will be th... let put in the context. recoizing that the deficit is somethg, i don't. i have children, have many grandchildren, i don't intend to ss any personal debt or publi debts on the them. this is almost a mora issue,
the fiscal responsibility for our country. the... that's y we've been wedded to pay as you go which, when it was in effect under president cnton four of his last budgets were either in balance or in surplus. he put us on a trajecty of trillions of dollars in surplus. president bush came in and turned that all around. a historic turnaround of like $11 trillion change to take us back into debt because he did not sport pays y go which whawe had during the clinton years and which we now have as the law of the land once again. paas yo go. yo cannot irease the defic a. two, we have insisted that all the committees look for was, fraud, abuse. strip everything... subject every federal dollar to the harshest scrutiny to see what is obsolete, what's duplicative, etc. third, we establish this... the president tablhed is commission. it wasupposed to be
legislatively established but the repubcans in the senate voted against it. so that then the president said, okay, i'll do it by executive der. , again,pay asyou go, no new deficit spending, and strip down those bill to the be... to what is necessary and, again, the commission. the cmission will issue its report... >> rose: a bipartin coissi. >> bipartisan commission december 1. following that, the senate will take up the recommendation and if they pass the recommendation and it comes to the house of reesentatives. >> rose: what is their... so whatever they recommend. someone has suggested... some have suggested there ought to be sily and up-and-down votein both the housend the senate. what would you think of that idea? >> well, i don't know why we would surrender the discretion of congress to have a debate on it. but... >> rose: well, debate on it... >> it will carry weight. >> rose: it will be accepted or not. the recommendation of bipartisan commissio one of
the more important issues in the country, which is the size of our debt. >> y, but our members have... here's the thing. i think people are optimistic about what mig come out of it. but when we tal about it, and i think it's really important to make this distinction. people are saying what are they going to do to social security? and ihink that just as this table has a line through it, you have to ep these sues sepate. if y're talkingabou keeping social securitysolvent then whatever you dide for social security shoulbe on this side of the lger. social security is not adding to the deficit. nor should it be an a.t.m. mache for tax cuts for the wealthy or any other initiatives that would increase the deficit and say okay, we'r gng t raise the riremt age on social security so we can balance the budgetso we n give tax cuts to th higend. that what the republican plan would be. we're saying social security, let's deal with it.
it has to be solvent, what are some of the solutions to ensure that it is? reducing the deficit, that's about pay as you go. it's about fiscal soundness. >> rose: okay, how about medicare. >> medicare same thing. it's very big challenge. we went a lon way down the road in the health care bill by tting half a trillion dolrs of excess cost out of medicare in order to be able to sustain it. the republicans are running around saying oh, you cut $500 billion out of medicare. not out of benefits, not out of wh it mns people and consumers but out of waste, fraud, abuse, admistration... not administration, but any other excesses that were in medicare. absolutely essential. so we did some of the work of e commission already in the... in that bill. but it will be interesting to e what they comeupith. ey hav had a while, a number of months, good people gathered together i think of good intent and look forward to seeing
what... >> rose: and it comes in december? >> it comes in december. but, again, i wldn't put every egg in tha basket. at'sne element. we still have to have pay as you go. and thateans if yo want to... you have thaveoffsets. >> rose: has this been a congress that's pay as you go? >> y, it has. >> rose: so in other words whenever there was a revenue item there was a... >> the republicans would not... >> rose: whatever there was a revenue item there was, in fact... >> well, revenue and expense. now, the republics don't want to pay for tax cuts. they say "o, we shouldn't pay for taxuts." >> rose: what do you mean by "pay for tax cuts"? republicans were in favor of the bush tax cuts. >> they don't want to pay for them. >> rose: they don't want to see-- according to the man who would like to be you-- they do not want to see any doing ay with the bush tax cuts for the wealthy as well as the middle-class. >> this is a point of difference
between us. the president has proposed-- as he did in his campaign-- that we have tax cut for all americans. and after $250,000, you still get theax cut as aoint filer t you don't get an extra tax cut. that extra taxcut cost $70 billion. the republicans said give it there anyw and don't pay for it. >> rose: the tax cut for t middle-class cost $1.3 triion. >> y, butit's job creor. athat end it has differe dynamieffe. >> rose: it's job cator? >> it's much mor of a job creator than just givi e or me anextra tax cut at this end. it's not goingo make any difference in our spending but here it will. >> rose: if the president-- and perhaps he did-- had come to the speaker and said "we have no bigger challenge than to do something about unemployment in thisountry. wee going through an enormous
economic crisis but unemployment is a consequence we have to deal with if i do nothing else, madam spear, i want to bring that down to 8% and pefuyore." is the anything that the two of you could have done to have hievhat goal? >> well, first of all, let me say that t president when he sent... >> rose: the majority in the congress... in the house and in the senate. >> but yeed 60 votes in the senate. >> rose: i know. >> youeed 60tevos in the senate and that's an aner t almost every question because we have sent them a jobs bill over and over again. >> rose: and i guess when mr. brn waelecd to succe senator kennedy that was a wakeup call for where things were. >> well it also prevented us from getting 60 ves for so of these jobs bil. but i think it's... >> rose: what would have you have said, though? that the quen. >> here'shat the president did do. the president sents audget 100 days exactly after his inauguration the house and the sena passed the president's budget. it w a luesased budget
about what'simportant ur country and how we allocate our resources, it was to reduce taxes for the middle-class, lower the deficit and create jobs around three pillars. health care reform, four million jobs, climate and energy almost two llion jobs. >> ro: encation? >> education/innovation because it begins in the classroom. if those bills had been passed... and they were the job creators. if those bills had been passed in a timely fashion many more jobs would have been created ready. that's on top of the recovery act one week and one day after his inauguraddress we psed the recovery act. so that was a job creator. without it we'd be in much worse shape in terms of unemployment other thin happened that we didn't get these bills passed soon enough that would be job creators. we had other infrastructure bills that the senate then didn't have the votesor. you have to remember, we didn't have 60 votes until thesummer. there was no arlenspecter
democrat, there was no al franken. >> rose: would youhang e filibuster rule in the senate? >> well, it's our house, i have enough to do... >> rose: you said it's the biggesprobm. >>t i a proble it is a problem. >> rose: so does it make government in america dysfunctnal? does it? >> we wereble t pass the health carbill unr reconciliation. >> rose: exactly right. because you didn't hav0 vote >> look, i don't want to go into the rus in the senate. >> rose: it says to you we' dysfunctional if we uldn't do it? >> i'm not claiming we're dysfunctional i'm just saying everything has to be reviewed because the fact is one sator in the united states senate could hold up... it isn't just about getting 60, it's aboutne senator hang the power to hold up any legislation. >> rose: and hold up appointments as well. >> 99 senatorsre not enough, that's the expression. if you have one who objects then you have a problem. so let's have some clarity about
this the president has an emergency bill at the beginning of the congress which was a job creator. he had a budt that was to develop jobs. we had infrastructure legislation which would which we could noget passed in the senate. because so because many on the republican side were saying we're just saying , maybe it's what they believe that they didn't think there should be these vernment initiatives. maybe it's a combination, whatever it is i trt it's what they believe. >> fair enough. the president had said-- the president in thi interview he did with peter baker in the "new york times" magazine which i'm sure you have read or want to re said that ther are no... "i discovered" the president said "there really aren't any shovel-rea procts. >>well fwheshgs thhouse hav a different view. they're not shove ready they're bulldozer ready. the fact is it's a year and a half later >> ros so u could havehown the prident some bulldozer ready projects and you could have spend the money on him and created some jobs. >> it's a question of definition
of terms. the fact is that our country has to have an infrastructure vision. >> rose: would the country have been a better off if the recovery act h n been $700 billion but had been $1.3 trillion which is thnumber that christine romer apparently recommended. you know that. you were there in the room. in your opinion the room:. >> we had a bigger bill in the house. >>ose:o is that at we needed and was that a mistake for jobs and recovery not to have a much larger stimulu program? >> well, let me say this. in all of these things we want to do two things. we want to create jobs and we want to be fiscally sound. so we thought that w the balance that did sboet that we re not going... because this costs un do this, obviously. and so that was a place that was the balance. if greece hadn't hapned, if b.p.adn't happened... you know
there are other things that have stood in the way of job creation in additn to the publicans in the unite states sate who... by the 60 vote margin we couldn get much passed there, fortately. but i'll tell you that in the house many peoe think and thought theime that we needed a bigger package. i myself was trying to balance the sensitivity that we have on fiscal responsibility. >> rose: so you're saying your members... a significant number of your members thought you needed a larger package or are you saying just members of the presidens economic team thought they needed a larger package? >> i can't speak for the present's economic team, you have their quote bus from the standpnt ofthe house we either wanted... what we did want was infrastructure legislation. the highway and infrastructure legislation which can't pass in the senate. rose: if you got $70 bilon
without reblicsupport you could have gotten $1.3 trillion without any republican support and ur argument is you couldn't have gottent in the senate? >> cldn'have gotten i in the senate. >> rose: you could ha gotten it in the house? >> i don't know that. i don't know that. >> rose: you think democrats would have been defectd? >> we had it bigger than700. the compromi was the $70 but remember that $300 billion of that recovery packa was middle income tax rief. $300 billion. mosteople don't republican... >> rose: you know what the president sa about tha heays what i should he don thenegotiatio is low the republicans to say look, they wanted that, th i it. so he said i should havegive them...allowed themo te credit for that. it would havbeen a better political idea for the perception in the country. >> i have no idea. i don't know if it would have woed. i trust that the president thin that that's fine but they have obstructed everything. they have decided to just say no. d sot the time we had 68
democrats. they had to get two republicans in the senate and nobody wants to beumbe 60 so they had to get three republicans so nobody would be the one. >> rose: right. >> and in ordertor do that the bill changedn the senate. still a very powerful bill. >> absolutely. >>ur members thought, though, thatn infrastructure bill would be coming soon. large the issue this way. it's not enough to put people back to work. >> rose: spend $500 billion to reain them then. >> we have to have other initiatives. we have to have the new green jobs for the future and people knowthat. there's so much need. weave trillions of dollars of deficit in our infrastructure whether it's wat projts, etheit's broad band, whether it's high speed rail. >> >> rose: then ll me why we
don't have all the things you just suggested we need. why don't we have them? why don't we have... is the a serious proposal to give us the kind of high-spd train that ey have in europe or in china? china! >> i've been on them. >> is there a serious approach to that kind of high-speed rail transportation in this country? wee talking about a program in flida between tampa and somewhere, aren't we? >> well, the recovery act had a number of initiatives in it and grantsere being given out around the country. but we have to do more. and... what we have to do i comeogetr in aipartin wa, public/private, public/private. becausthe private sect oronos that we have to make these investments in irastructure. it's about moving commerce and people and it's about cleaning the air, it's about honoring the spirit ofisenwer. president eisenhower...
>> rose: interstate highway. >> interstate highway in a time of not good economy he went forth and did the interstate highway bill to unite america. it was a defense issue that we should able to travel across america more quickly. senator gore of tennseeal gore's father, heeally spearheaded this in the united states senate so it was a bipartisan initiative, very important tour country. we nd sothing ofthat caliber. thomas jefferson, teddy roosevelt, ight eisenhower. >> rose: if we don't have it, can we be competitive in a changing world with a new world order in which there are powerful new economic forces not just in china andndia but in turkey? but in latin america? >> you're right to expand it, it's more many countries. many more countries. two things. the energy initiatives andhe infrastructure are related.
we have to... and the education issue. science, technology, engineeng math met i cans, very impornt to invest in that so we have the talent to t infrastructe a gen way as we go forward. that we do the green technology so we're nber one. think of this. when president kennedy called... announced... >> rose: the man on the moon project. >> safely, safely, witn ten years. d it in eight. the average age of the people in mission control at that time when the moon... the ccessful... when neil armstrong stepped on on the the moon, the average age in mission control was 26 years old. that mea that when the president made the announcement, they were 18 years old. a loof young people we pt of it. >> rose: exactly. >> and t investmentsin science and education and the rest are very imptant to our
president... president kensy said of that if we werto honor the vows of our founders we must be first and therefore we intend to be first and we were first and now we intent to be first in terms of the new green technologies. >> rose: so what would your man on the moon project be-- and return, as you say. >> safely. (laughs) >> rose: well, my issue as speaker, of course, health care is the preeminent first among equals issue. but in terms of an issue that everybody has notoine into, it's the issue of addressing our energy security and addressing thclimate change issue. it's about tion security, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, about health, reducing the emissions in the air, it's about jobs, jobs, jobs jobs to have the technologies to keep us number o, preeminent in the world in these new technologies and the world is not iting. so national serity and jobs, two of our primary responsibilities, the health issue, of course, is vital importt.
but the place that we... where all roads lead, when you want to create new jobs for the future is built a green infrastructure for the future. develop the technology that make us preeminent nationally. that's where i think we absolutely must... ban ki-mo came to my officeonce and he said t me... wewere passing the legislation, if we don't act by 2012 on the climate issue it may be too late. it may be too late. somethinsomething we cannot ignore. >> rose: he's what some people are saying. there may not be the will with the kind of deficit we have to spend the kind of money necessary to do the things you just outlined. >> well, first of all,f you don't... when weet this report from the bipartisan fiscal
commission d they talk about cuts and this and this and this, i hope they're also talking about growth because we're never going to resolve riscal situation unle we have growth, unless we have job creation and moy, reven coming in from people who are working in good-paying jobs. so we have to... it's a false economy to say we're not going to spend.. we're not going to feed our kids and send them to school because that costs money and we want to be fiscally sound here's the thing, we have to be ve creative. public/private rtnerships leveraging ourollafar beyond... they're not ever going to be... >> rose: but you're asking for siness and private sector to work tether in t administtionnd we read stories everyday about how business and this administration don't lish each other. >> let me say this, some of the wall street people have said to me who are interested in these issues that the biggest emerging economy... the biggest emerging market in the world is building
infrastructure of america. that is an economic opportunity. anwe have to set the standard. that attracts cital, phaps an fraure bank to leverage our dollars. there's never going to be enough appropriated dollars. it's exciting because it takes a... it's one thing to have the ideas about green jobs and building the infrtructure in a new scientific way that that is effient d environmtally sound and moves commerce and product and people to market and the rest. but it's also you havto have the business sense of how do we attract capital toll that. when i first became... e ader, i made aspeech to the mmonwealthlub out... >> re: isan francisco. >> in san francisco abouthe relationship between the public sector and t privateecto d how weneed each other.
how we educate our children, have a safety in our neighborhoods, how we do what government does andow the private sector is creator jobs and capital and wealth in ou country and that we are dependent on each other and we must be respectful of each other. and all of the initiatives-- health care, energy, whatever it is-- we're always about what will encourage thearket forces. what are the prite sector solutions that our aions will generate rather than the government do it all. >> rose: when you say that, why do you think the perception's so different? that's not percepti of the leadership? the house. that's not the perception of the leership in e whe hou. >>his particular issue, because itasn'proded e result that we want yet. but, you know, it's not goi to go away. this is something that has to happen for our country to have a
strong economy, to have growth. >> rose: and to be competitive in the world economy. >> to be competitive internationally. and, again, the world is not waiting, and as you know from all of the pple you interviewed, this is a globa economy. we can sit it out. and it is pretty exciting. but, again, we have to look to thglobal marketpla as w d but we also have to say let's make it in america. the erosion of our manufacturi technological, and industrial base is an economic issue and it a national security sue. we c't letthat g anwewant tolet peoe make in the america as they make in the america and not get... give tax credits to businesses to send jobs overseas. that has to stop. that has to stop. >> rose: tom brokaw wrote a piece in the "new york times" the other day in which he said thers no debe in this mpaign about foreign policy and about afghanistan. >> that's true. >> rose: should there be? >> well, they certainly are majo issues any time our men
and women in uniform-- god bless them-- are fighting for our country. but come back to what i said to you before. 9.5% unemployment. it ecpses ery issue as politil issue in a campaign. where the the jobs? where the the jobs for these men and women in uniform when they come home? how are we honoring the service of our veterans by building a future worthy of their sacrifice and to make sure that we pass a g.i. sbil th can go to college but we have to have jobs as well is true, we won in 2006 en the issue was largely about iraq and the president was at 38% and the public was unhappy. we won 30 seats at that me. this timeit's about js d i gus it's always about jobs now n't ? it's always about jobs. so i fee..as iaid the
beginning, i feelonfident about where we are. i'd rather be where we are than the republicans. we know we're right on the issues that we have passed in the congress. we're proud of that. our members are fighting the fight. and each of their districts across the country and the american people, they are the boss, they have great wisdom, we all have confidence in them and respectheir decision. but, again, i feel pretty good about it. >> rose: you'll watch the results from san francisco? >> washington, d.c. >> rose: woweel be in washington? >> washington, d.c. >> rose: that means i can talk to you. >> well, thawoul be my pleasure. >> rose: thank you vy much, madam speaker, great to have you here. we've done this a number of times and ch time i find out something new. so thank you. >> as do i. thank you very much. >> rose: a conversation with the speaker of the house on the eve of a midterm election that will have enormous nsequences. thank you for joining us. see u ne time.